•
Rating: Umberto Eco is definitely one of the most read Italian authors both abroad and at home. His most famous book is undoubtedly The Name of the Rose, and it's pleasing to know that a French director appreciated it to the extent of initiating a collaboration with Italian and German production to create a film that achieved more than a decent success and which I believe is also commendable from an artistic standpoint. As expected, the film differs from the novel not so much because it fails to promote the plot faithfully, but because it is difficult to convert a multi-faceted book like Eco's into a two-hour film. The issue is not necessarily quantitative but especially qualitative: the entire philosophical layer of the book, as well as the much more nuanced distinction between good and evil, are elements almost completely lost in the cinematic adaptation of The Name of the Rose. Even the meaning of the title is not explained in the slightest (although I have been told that in other versions different from the one I have seen, there is a particular aspect at the end that suggests something, albeit divergent from the explanation in the book).
Putting aside the comparison between the two works, permissible only to a certain extent, let's talk about the film as a standalone piece: the whole begins with a voice-over narration that will accompany the entire film, essentially a story by Adso of Melk, a now old monk recounting his memories of terrible events that occurred during his youth when, as a novice, he was entrusted to the wise monk William of Baskerville (a character merging influences from the personalities of Sherlock Holmes and William of Ockham), his mentor, experiencing a unique journey with him. The story indeed revolves around a series of mysterious and gruesome deaths affecting a community of monks who seek the help of William, a former inquisitor, to uncover what is happening before disastrous events (seemingly linked to the pages of the Apocalypse regarding the coming of the Antichrist) undermine the balance of an important meeting between representatives of papal power and supporters of the church's pauperistic doctrine, set to take place shortly at the monastery plagued by these terrible happenings.
The monks (all hideous and often deformed in an almost inhuman way) will not always favor William's actions, who to be honest, especially at the beginning, seems a bit too much like an overly brilliant and out-of-context Sherlock. However, the blend between medieval times and thriller soon becomes less inexperienced, and piece by piece, it outlines a plot of absolute fascination, not only concerning the mysterious case to be solved but also the personal stories of the two protagonists, the young one entangled in a love affair causing him numerous worries, besides making him break his vows, the wise one instead facing the hellish inquisitor Bernardo Gui, which will also bring to light the long-hidden past of the old William. The ending leads to understanding the mass of deviations the plot subjected us to, making us believe numerous times we understood everything but actually revealing in the end that the storyline we imagined was not comparable to the complexity of the real one. The plot is wonderfully laid out over two hours and a little more of film, despite some moments perhaps a bit too frantic and rushed, and in the end, the intricate plot manages to be clear without too many issues. Certainly, a lack of attention can cost dearly since the narration's abundance of details forces us to pay attention to every second of the film to not miss any piece along the way, but there is nothing left unexplained or not brought back together at the end, even if at first it may appear seemingly nonsensical.
Noteworthy is the portrayal of William by an excellent Sean Connery, as well as the appropriate and evocative sets by our once again own Dante Ferretti. On the other hand, forgettable are the scores by James Horner, who, despite a highly respectable resume, seems to have taken no more than half an hour to compose the music for this film, which besides being scarcely present (and up to this point, not necessarily a bad thing) is quite trite, underdeveloped, and not always suitable to the situations depicted.
Numerous mentions of Aristotle are made, but in a rather sketchy manner, although the great philosopher ends up being central to the events the story reveals. Far more present than the philosophical aspect is the religious one, not certainly showcased in particularly good light in this film: medieval prejudices of all sorts, ridiculous topics dealt with at congregations of seemingly epochal importance, perversions even taken for granted within the monastery, the dark side of Christianity prominently displayed in various ways. And last but not least, a stench of rot pervades the entire film, to which the religious theme it is laden with likely contributes more significantly than the gloomy medieval skies and omnipresent filth. The monks themselves, as mentioned earlier, possess horrifying, almost monstrous features, almost as if to represent the malevolent faith underlying all the injustices present in the film. William represents reason in this sea of madness, but reason nonetheless united with God, the reason of a Saint Augustine or at most a Descartes: a lover of knowledge and almost erotically attracted to books, William is the mediator between faith and reason, who sins of pride but proves to be right.
Finally, the tension is very well regulated throughout the course of this film, which will undoubtedly be able to offer more than a strong thrill to its viewers and leave something in their hearts.
Loading comments slowly
